Same class under Rule 173L(3)(iii) is judged broadly by common characteristics, not different tariff headings.

Rule 173L(3)(iii) requires the returned goods and the remade goods to belong to the same class, and that expression is to be construed broadly by reference to common characteristics rather than identical tariff classification. Aluminium sheets returned for remaking and aluminium ingots produced after processing were therefore treated as goods of the same class, even though they fell under different tariff headings. The refund was held admissible, and the objection based solely on tariff classification was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium sheets and aluminium ingots could be regarded as goods of the same class for the purpose of refund under Rule 173L(3)(iii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, notwithstanding that they were classifiable under different tariff headings.

Analysis: The applicable test under Rule 173L(3)(iii) is whether the returned goods and the remade goods belong to the same class, not whether they are identical or fall under the same tariff heading. The expression "class" was applied in a broad sense, on the basis that goods having common attributes may still form the same class even if their commercial form changes after remanufacture. Prior decisions were followed in which returned goods such as bricks remade into mortar, and returned goods reprocessed into different forms, were held to satisfy the same-class requirement. On that basis, aluminium sheets returned for remaking and aluminium ingots produced after processing were treated as goods of the same class for the refund condition.

Conclusion: The refund under Rule 173L(3)(iii) was admissible, and the Revenue's objection based on different tariff headings was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For Rule 173L(3)(iii), "same class" is to be understood broadly by reference to common characteristics of the goods, and not defeated merely because the returned and remade goods fall under different tariff headings.

---